December 14, 2006

Reid refused to comment on Johnson's medical condition, declining to even answer a question on whether the senator was conscious. "To me he looked very good," Reid said....

"The senator is recovering without complication," said Adm. John Eisold, the Capitol physician. "It is premature to determine whether further surgery will be required or to assess any long-term prognosis."...

A brain specialist not involved with Johnson's care said there's no way to know until Johnson is awake and able to answer questions how much lingering damage, if any, the bleeding may have caused. Still, while he'll remain in intensive care for a while, "he has every chance of recovery," said Dr. William Bank, who treats AVM and other neurovascular disorders at Washington Hospital Center.

Certainly no other news outlets are playing up the "in case of incapacitation" scenarios. Just the usual right-wing suspects like the New York Times ("Control of Senate at Issue As Sen. Johnson Undergoes Brain Surgery"), NPR ("Johnson's Illness Clouds Future of Senate Control"), Reuters ("Senator's illness could spark US political upheaval") et al.

Doyle, you'd find fault with Ann even if she argued that Bill Clinton were the Messiah.

And best wishes for a speedy recovery to Senator Johnson. God forbid, the Senator couldn't continue to serve, this staunch Republican would urge the Governor to appoint a Democrat. The people spoke, and they should have the final word.

First, if Sen. Johnson needs time for an extended recovery, he remains in the Senate unless he dies or formally resigns (there is no constitutional provision, either in the U.S. or S. Dakota constitution for allowing him to be declared 'incapacitated.') He could be removed from office by recall or by expulsion, but neither of those things will happen. With him remaining a member of the Senate but not active, Democrats still retain a 50-49 edge (Mr. Cheney has nothing to do with it except in case on an actual tie.)

Second, in the event that Sen. Johnson either dies or formally resigns, I doubt that Gov. Rounds would appoint a Democrat, nor will I (as a Democrat) blame him if he does not. It's the way the system is designed. Several years ago, Republican Paul Coverdell of Georgia died tragically. Then Georgia Gov. Mike Barnes, a Democrat, named his replacement (though Barnes ended up naming Zell Miller, so maybe he was leaning towards naming a Republican; naming Miller came pretty close to it.)

Eli, thanks for setting me straight on the rules, but I don't think that the system requires the Governor to appoint a Republican. The founders were wily politicians, though, so maybe this rule is intended as another check on the tyranny of the majority. Hadn't thought of it that way.

Freeman Hunt said... All people not depraved wish Johnson the best of recoveries.

"The senator is recovering without complication," said Adm. John Eisold, the Capitol physician. "It is premature to determine whether further surgery will be required or to assess any long-term prognosis."

I fear that I will be once again be falsely accused of wishing harm upon Sen. Johnson, despite having explicitly and repeatedly stated that I wish him a speedy recovery. But I must run that risk, because points raised by Doyle and OldDad simply cannot stand unanswered.

Doyle's comment at top of thread implies that there is something unspeakably ghoulish that people see an incapacitated public servant, whose death or resignation could have profound consequences for the future of this country. That position makes no sense. If President Bush was rushed to hospital following an apparent brain haemorrhage, and underwent emergency surgery whereafter doctors pronounced that he remained in critical condition, might die, and at best would be in recovery for months, I cannot seriously imagine that a prudent person would not want to brush up on their familiarity with the 25th Amendment, which determines what happens as a result, and given Cheney's history, even if there were no indication of imminent health problems, a particularly prudent person might want to familiarize themselves with 3 U.S.C. § 19. It is patently obvious that when a person discharges the functions of critical national elected office, if that person falls gravely ill, it is no disrespect to the man to ponder the consequences for the office and the nation.

OldDad repeats the assertion that, should the Senate declare the seat vacant, for whatever reason (and needless to say, one hopes that if it happens, it would be for reason of retirement) the Governor has some sort of incumbency to name a Democrat, because "[t]he people spoke, and they should have the final word." That is simply not the case. Which people spoke? What did they say? Even assuming, dubitante, that voters are voting for parties rather than people, the people of South Dakota spoke to which party they wanted to control the Senate in 2002 by sending Tim Johnson there; but they spoke again as to which party they wanted to control the Senate but two years later, when they defeated Johnson's fellow Democrat, Tom Daschle, and sent a Republican, John Thune, there. The people of South Dakota most recently spoke to their political preferences but a month ago, when they elected a Republican to discharge the functions of Governor - which includes filling Senate vacancies - with more than 60% of the vote, and at the same election, they elected a state legislature where Republicans outnumber Democrats in the region of two to one. If OldDad believes that national sentiment should be the lodestar for state-level decisions, he presumably also wishes to abolish the Electoral College. And, lastly, even assuming that last month "[t]he people spoke," and they really said "we want a Democratic-run Senate," and even if that were somehow relevant to what South Dakota should do, the Senate is explicitly designed to frustrate such passing whims; its separation into three classes of Senators elected at different times is precisely to erect a flood barrier that holds back the waves of passing public sentiment.

Tom Maguire is saying that if the partisan balance changes during a session, the Senate does not automatically undergo reorganization. In fact, he says, it usually doesn't. The reason it did in 2001 when Jeffords switched is that the Democrats had insisted on writing that into the rules at the beginning of that session.

Is there anyone on the right seriously hoping that he dies to free up a seat, or is it just the overwrought left projecting again? After all, a liar sees deceit everywhere, and were Cheney afflicted with a similar condition, champagne corks would be popping in the blue cities...

The Constitution doesn't mention Party, but people. Those Democrats that would whine about a person appointed that would caucus with Republicans, had no problem when Jeffords, just re-elected as a Republican, joined the Democratic caucus in 2001. Johnson's condition is big news. It would be silly not to speculate. The same would be true if a Supreme Court Justice were in the same condition. I hope for his family's sake he is ok. Democrats in control of the Senate is not the end of the world. I just wish leftists would feel the same about our troops, hope for success for the USA rather than cheering each death for domestic politics.

counter-coulter -Your own link exposes your misrepresentation. This wasn't some insidious, inappropriate propaganda being pedaled uniquely by Fox, it was also stated by CBS News. It may be factually inaccurate, but that doesn't support your characterization of it. Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.

I'm familiar with this condition, my Mother has an AVM that is inoperable. At anytime she could die or become a vegetable. If he were to become a Terry Schiavio, the cafeteria euthanasiaists would completely change their tune.

Simon said... This wasn't some insidious, inappropriate propaganda being pedaled uniquely by Fox, it was also stated by CBS News.

The fact that a Gloria Borger can be just as unfactual as Hume and Cavuto doesn't disprove that Fox too was doing "goulish" speculation on Johnson. So it was hardly the sole domain of that nasty "liberal media" bias that you presented in your links.

Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity."

Always nice to see someone calling out Fox's reporting for what it is.

Harry Reid praying? I thought religion and spirituality based an anything other than Mother Earth was to be avoided, and it's adherents roundly mocked as they shuttled from Wal Mart to church to gun shows.

I hope the Senator makes a full recovery, but I'm reasonably sure that dozens or hundreds of DNC lawyers are staying up nights researching and writing briefs that will allow Johnson to remain in office no matter what happens to him, short of death. And if he enters a persistent vegatative state, guess who'll suddenly be all pro-life and filing lawsuits to keep the plug in the wall?

I predict many lawsuits if the Senator doesn't make a quick recovery. Mark my words.

What would Democrats do if Johnson has a living Will that dictates he be removed from life support? If Johnson is incapacitated I would not fault Democrats for maintaining their majority. Republicans would be smart to agree and not make stupid assertions that the people deserve an active Senator. I mean, look how worthless Kerry has been for the people of Massachusetts.

If you can't separate the personal well-wishes from the political ramifications, that's your problem, counter-coulter, not ours. Unlike you, I suppose, I'm quite comfortable walking and chewing gum at the same time.

Not that I disagree with your analysis as to whether it is incumbent on the Governor to appoint a Democrat, it is incumbent on you to re-read Old Dad's post. At a minimum, I would urge you to grant that there is a distinction between someone urging the Governor to do something and asserting that it is incumbent on the Governor to do something.

It is not the condition of Johnson Democrats have to worry about, but now socialist Bernie Sanders power has doubled. He can now threaten to not caucus with either Party if he doesn't get what he wants.

counter-coulter: Everyone reading here with an IQ over 50 understood the context perfectly without your hand-drawn map. We genuinely appreciate your concern, however, but respectfully suggest that your talents for overstating the obvious would be better employed in some other endeavor or venue.

counter-coulter said..."Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. Always nice to see someone calling out Fox's reporting for what it is."

On that much, at least, we can certainly agree. Fox certainly can be malicious, but most of the time they're just shrill and dumb, and in this instance, I think it's just a case of the same afflication that infects every corner of the media: a cavalier attitude towards detail.

No beard: Lawsuits would be thrown out of court. Only the United States Senate itself may make rules about the qualifications for membership. There are no rules with regard to disability. IIRC, The United States Supreme Court stripped almost all congressional discretion with regard to who is or is not fit to serve in Congress when it decided the case of Adam Clayton Powell.

(Contrary to what was stated elsewhere, no federal representative may be recalled from office.)

Interesting how all the LLL dems are complaining about Fox talking about the case of incapacitation. Check out the Sacramento Bee which is far from a right wing paper. In fact it is as far to the left as the MSM can get. Yet tonight their political news letter has 4 articles about replacing the senator. They all start with a brief, very brief, hope that he recovers and then spend the rest of the column talking about how to replace him if he becomes incapacitated with quotes from all sorts of unidentified sources. Nice!!

Simon, your link to that Cheney story went to a right-wing blog commenting on it rather than to the Huffington Post entry itself. If one cares to click through to the post itself, one will find in the four pages of comments a number of decent people condemning the idea of praying for anyone's death.

Internet Ronin said..."Only the United States Senate itself may make rules about the qualifications for membership ... IIRC, The United States Supreme Court stripped almost all congressional discretion with regard to who is or is not fit to serve in Congress when it decided the case of Adam Clayton Powell."

Wrong on the first point, correct on the second. "[T]he Constitution leaves the [Congress] without authority to exclude any person, duly elected by his constituents, who meets all the requirements for membership expressly prescribed in the Constitution ... Art. I, 5, is at most a 'textually demonstrable commitment' to Congress to judge only the qualifications expressly set forth in the Constitution." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 522, 548 (1969). Accord U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) ("after examining Powell's historical analysis and its articulation of the "basic principles of our democratic system," we reaffirm that the qualifications for service in Congress set forth in the text of the Constitution are 'fixed,' at least in the sense that they may not be supplemented by Congress").

Presumably, though, if the situation became intractable, the Senate could expell Johnson in order to vacate his seat, although that would be an extreme remedy.

Elizabeth said..."Simon, your link to that Cheney story went to a right-wing blog commenting on it rather than to the Huffington Post entry itself

That post links, prominently, within six words, to the HuffPo post. What an interesting inversion you've cooked up: normally people defend the despicable things said on blogs by saying that if it's in the comments, it doesn't count. You're saying that the post itself -- and the willingness of Ariana et al to tolerate its continued existence -- don't count because of what's in the comments! Do you judge Ann's integrity and morals based on the people who comment here? I sure hope not! So why would you judge the Huffington Post based on what their commenters say rather than on what THEY say?

Of course, if Johnson is permanently incapacitated, it would be to the advantage of the Republicans to remove him ASAP while they still have a majority. Once the Democrats take over in Jan., short of death, he stays in.

Simon said... Fox certainly can be malicious, but most of the time they're just shrill and dumb, and in this instance, I think it's just a case of the same afflication that infects every corner of the media: a cavalier attitude towards detail.

I can definitely agree with your assessment in this regard. Too often the media favor the "get it first" credo over "get it right".

Of course, if Johnson is permanently incapacitated, it would be to the advantage of the Republicans to remove him ASAP while they still have a majority

They'd never do it. First of all it would make them look *incredibly* bad in the eyes of the public, especially since it would play out as them "stealing" the Senate. And secondly, it wouldn't work anyway, because they'd never get a filibuster-proof majority to back it.

When Ms. Althouse makes a point about posting a quote out of context to make an implication as to the level of one's decency.

Um, are you retarded? Ann wasn't implying Reid wasn't decent. The quote obviously reflected his refusal to even discuss the implications of Johnson's ill health. She didn't quote him out of context -- you just read her post in light of your preconceived, and incorrect, notion that she was being vindictive.

The quote obviously reflected his refusal to even discuss the implications of Johnson's ill health.

Speaking of retarded, how can you characterize "There isn't a thing that's changed" as a refusal to discuss the implications? It's a statement that Democrats will still have control of the Senate. Whether or not it's true, it's an unambiguous answer.

She didn't quote him out of context...

This point is a little more subtle, but try to stay with me:

By omitting that he was asked about the implications for Democratic control, the quote suggests that Reid is denying that Johnson's stroke has any significance whatsoever. This makes him sound extra callous.

And, with: MadisonMan said... I also thought playing the audio of Senator Johnson was completely unnecessary and very invasive.

Sen Johnson was in a PRESS CONFERENCE! Why would this on record even be more sacrosanct than reporters noting Bush I threw up on the PM of Japan at a State Dinner they were covering? On "due privacy rights of politicans in public" grounds??

The other disagreement I have is with the self-annointed Sanitizers that presume to impose censorship on us for the "sake of the children", or to nobly avoid making public any info "that would upset the almighty wishes of the Victim(s) Family(s)"..

That with holds some very valuable information or emotional context from stories.

In this case, millions of people learned how fast the onset of a cerebral bleed can happen, what some of it's symptoms are. Which could save lives.

In the Oklahoma City bombing the iconic picture was a fireman holding a mangled baby got past the sanitizers...a photo that won the Pulitzer Prize and framed McVeighs evil act. In NYC, only those who watched early news footage saw the jumpers sanitized from all later footage in the following 5 years in favor of Bush II at "Ground Zero" and those media editors seeking a minimization of 9/11 carnage accessible to the public for the sake of stopping "hate crimes" and pushing the "Islam is Peace" line.

I do believe the NYTimes has well crossed the "line" of the public's right to know in several national security cases as have the Wash Post. But when critical realtime pictures or footage of significant events is blocked from the public, there better be solid reasons.

For all our vaunted "right of the public to know", the public was kept in the dark about JFKs pecadillos and heavy drug use, and in another example, Thurgood Marshalls virtual mental and physical incapacitation his last two years on the Court.

My nephew, who was a child when 9/11 happened, didn't believe pictures of WTC jumpers existed. I showed him the video I made of CNN's coverage that day. Much of what CNN did live has since been sanitized. He said all the "stuff" they never saw in school made him pretty mad...and he asked why people care about terrorist rights so much when so many of "our people" only had a right to jump and be spattered or burn to death...Precisely why so many of the Sanitizers want those images never to be seen again.

Strokes for instance (this wasn't a stroke) can be hard for the average person to recognize, but if you do recognize that there is a problem and see a doctor rapidly, your prognosis is much much much improved. And is 100% full recovery versus severe mental deficits, paralysis, and death.

Here is what the evil liberal homosexual atheist terrorist loving government scientists wasting our tax payer dollars on silly research like strokes have to say:

Act in Time

Stroke is a medical emergency. Every minute counts when someone is having a stroke. The longer blood flow is cut off to the brain, the greater the damage. Immediate treatment can save people's lives and enhance their chances for successful recovery.Why is there a need to act fast?Ischemic strokes, the most common type of strokes, can be treated with a drug called t-PA, that dissolves blood clots obstructing blood flow to the brain. The window of opportunity to start treating stroke patients is three hours, but to be evaluated and receive treatment, patients need to get to the hospital within 60 minutes.

Cedarford: Nowadays, we can search the Web to find videos of Daniel Pearl's murder, Budd Dwyer's suicide, and last year's fatal horse-sex incident in Washington state. Some things should not be "pushed" at us by the media; we can "pull" such content ourselves if we wish to see it. I'm not saying the tape of Senator Johnson is nearly as distasteful as any of the above, but on your view, it would seem to be "sanitizing" to choose not to show them.

What else would she have the reader infer if not Reid's level of decency?

How about nothing? How about the sentence meaning exactly what it said? If you seriously believe that it was Ann Althouse's intent to disparage Harry Reid with that post, there is no point in the conversation.

Of course, you could always ask her directly, but I notice none of you folks ever do.

For my money, I saw the left wing press (NY Times, CNN, See B.S., etc.) doing much more hand-wringing over the fact that, dang it, they just might lose the Senate because of this than I ever saw the centrist networks like FOX or the right wing like commentators Rush Limbaugh happy about it. If anything I saw all rightward people being solemn about it, even praying for Johnson's recovery.

Which brings me to another observation. I see a lot of people who were rooting to have the food and water tubes jerked out of Terri Schiavo now doing an about-face and ready for all manner of extraordinary heroic measures for Johnson, just so the Dems can continue to control the Senate. I'm pro-life 100% of the time, so it doesn't bother me, but just watching and seeing, then just saying...

Don't overcomplicate things, Simon. My point is that decent people don't pray for the deaths of their political opponents. After that post on Huffington, even regular readers of HP were offended. I'm not at all evaluating the relative importance of bloggers versus their commenters, nor were you when you posted that link.

It's the left that wishes death upon their political opponents, while the right patiently waits for the opportunity to vanquish theirs at the ballot box. It's one thing that differentiates them. For whatever reason the left is still stunted in its Stalinist roots.

I see a lot of people who were rooting to have the food and water tubes jerked out of Terri Schiavo now doing an about-face and ready for all manner of extraordinary heroic measures for Johnson, just so the Dems can continue to control the Senate.

Schiavo was brain dead for years, and this guy's been in the hospital a day. What a ludicrous analogy.

Not to be irreverent, but I hope the ostentatious nods to Sen. Johnson's health, and fervent disclaiming of any interest in the political consequences of his health crisis stops soon. It's too much. It's not believable, and the more people say it, the more I hear the wheels turning inside their partisan minds.

Let's face it: No one outside Johnson's immediate circle would be very concerned about this one man if he weren't a senator whose fate affects the fate of the country by sheer dint of his being one of 51. I don't know much about his voting record or his accomplishments, but, as the saying goes, the graveyards are filled with indispensable men (and women.) His story matters for exactly the reason that everybody is pretending not to care about.

downtownlad said... "This is so silly. Of course Republicans want him to croak ... It will give them the Senate and that will give Bush a mandate to continue to the Iraqi War."

Democrats can still put a halt to the war with control of a single chamber. Granted, they cannot do so gracefully, and they cannot do so without some level of political risk to themselves. None-the-less, the thing that keeps Dems from stopping the war isn't control of the Senate, it's that their leaders aren't as stupid as their followers. The leadership understands the consequence of withdrawing from Iraq, and their goal is to have Bush pull the plug, thereby escaping blame from the ensuing catastrophe.

John - I think you've completely missed the point. Nobody wants Johnson to die. Many people, however, would like for him to retire - as, indeed, we would like for every Democratic Senator to retire.

Yes, look how unfettered control of the Country has been so beneficial for the Government these past 2 years! It's bigger, less efficient, more free-spending than ever! Bring on more Republican Control! I can't wait -- where do I sign up for an earmark?

??? I don't understand. What do you mean and how does that follow from my comment?

According to Ms. Althouse's logic, those in that interview that didn't expressly wish Johnson well were not decent. You took it a step further by stating "All people not depraved wish Johnson the best of recoveries."

Since the physician in the article did not expressly wish Johnson well, he must therefore not only be indecent, but depraved. Q.E.D.

I was going to ask, "How asinine can you be?" Then I realized who I was addressing this to.According to Ms. Althouse's logic, those in that interview that didn't expressly wish Johnson well were not decent.

Simon, just to be perfectly clear, I wasn't accusing people of wishing for Johnson's death. There might be some who are, but they're beyond the pale of human decency.

What I rather ineptly tried to express was my annoyance at having to see and hear all these very partisan Republicans and very partisan Democrats pretending they were only concerned about the senator's health, when it's obvious that the sole reason they're thinking about him or talking about him is because of how his tragedy affects them, and their respective parties' access to power. No, they don't want him to die, but they can't stop thinking about what happens if he does.